MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010441927 · doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2014.08.003

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Global Context

2014· review· en· W2010441927 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistContext (archaeology)Global healthObservational studySystematic reviewFamily medicinePublic healthMedical educationMEDLINEPathologyPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a clinically defined syndrome of hypoxia and bilateral pulmonary infiltrates due to inflammatory pathways triggered by pulmonary and nonpulmonary insults, and ARDS is pathologically correlated with diffuse alveolar damage. Estimates of ARDS's impact in the developed world vary widely, with some of the discrepancies attributed to marked differences in the availability of intensive care beds and mechanical ventilation. Almost nothing is known about the epidemiology of ARDS in the developing world, in part due to a clinical definition requiring positive pressure ventilation, arterial blood gases, and chest radiography. Current frameworks for comparing the epidemiology of death and disability across the world including the GBD (Global Burden of Disease Study) 2010 are ill-suited to quantifying critical illness syndromes including ARDS. Modifications to the definition of ARDS to allow a provision for environments without the capacity for positive pressure ventilation, and to allow for alternate diagnostic techniques including pulse oximetry and ultrasound, may make it possible to quantify and describe the impact of ARDS in the global context.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it